The Pay Equity Shell Game—Why "Accounting Tricks" Aren't the Same as a Raise

By Feminist Focus ·

A new "accounting technique" is being promoted as a solution to the gender pay gap. Here's the problem: it's designed to make the pay gap *look* smaller without actually giving women more money. This is corporate gaslighting dressed up in spreadsheets.

TL;DR

A new "accounting technique" is being promoted as a solution to the gender pay gap. Here's the problem: it's designed to make the pay gap *look* smaller without actually giving women more money. This is corporate gaslighting dressed up in spreadsheets, and we need to talk about it.

Okay, Let's Unpack This

Real talk: I saw a story this week that made my blood boil, and not in the "righteous anger" way—in the "this is so transparently manipulative that I need to sit down" way.

Researchers are promoting an "accounting technique" that supposedly helps close the gender pay gap. And on the surface, sure, it sounds great. Except it doesn't actually pay women more money. It just makes the numbers look better on a spreadsheet.

Here's how the shell game works:

The Shell Game: Percentage vs. Dollar Increases

Let's say you have two employees:

  • Man: Earns $80,000/year
  • Woman: Earns $60,000/year

The gap? $20,000/year. (That's not mathing.)

Now, here's where the "accounting trick" comes in. Instead of giving everyone a dollar increase—which would actually fix the problem—you give everyone a percentage increase.

Let's say everyone gets a 5% raise:

  • Man: $80,000 + 5% = $84,000
  • Woman: $60,000 + 5% = $63,000

The gap is now $21,000. It got worse.

But here's the corporate magic trick: if you measure the gap as a *percentage* instead of a *dollar amount*, it looks like progress. The researchers found that "the average pay gap between men and women was perpetuated more strongly when percentage rather than dollar increases were given."

Translation: If you use the right accounting method, you can pretend you're fixing something while making it worse.

Why This Matters (And Why It's Infuriating)

One researcher said this technique "can make a promising new addition to the field of pay equity" and noted that it has the advantage of "subtlety"—that companies can "avoid legal risks or shareholder pushback."

(Shocker: The goal isn't equity. The goal is avoiding lawsuits.)

Let's be clear about what's happening here:

  1. The Problem: Women earn significantly less than men in comparable roles. This is a real, measurable, persistent gap.
  2. The "Solution": Use accounting tricks to make the gap look smaller on paper, without actually paying women more.
  3. The Benefit: The company gets to say they're "committed to pay equity" without the actual cost of, you know, paying women equitably.
  4. The Risk Mitigation: By using the "right" metrics, they reduce shareholder pushback and legal exposure.

This is patriarchy in a spreadsheet.

The Math That Actually Matters

Here's what real pay equity looks like:

  • Audit your salary data by gender, race, and job level. Not "on average"—by specific role.
  • If there's a gap, fix it with a dollar increase to the lower-paid group. Not a percentage. Not an "accounting adjustment." An actual raise.
  • Do it publicly. Publish your salary bands. Let employees see the data. (Salary transparency is a weapon.)
  • Measure progress in dollars, not percentages. If the gap was $20,000 last year and it's still $20,000 this year, you didn't fix anything.

This is not complicated. It requires money, not creativity.

Why Companies Love This Shell Game

Because actual pay equity is expensive. If you have 1,000 employees and a 15% gender pay gap, closing that gap means writing real checks. That affects the bottom line. That affects executive bonuses.

But if you can use an "accounting technique" to make the gap look smaller? Free PR. No cost. No risk.

And here's the kicker: the researchers promoting this technique are literally saying the goal is to help companies "avoid legal risks or shareholder pushback." Not to help women. To help companies avoid consequences.

The Bigger Picture: Where the Real Power Is

This is why union contracts, pay transparency laws, and collective bargaining matter more than any "accounting innovation."

You know what closes the gender pay gap? Not accounting tricks. Collective agreements that set wages by role, not by who's in the seat. Contracts that say, "A software engineer at this company earns $X, period. No negotiation. No 'subtlety.'"

You know what else works? Pay transparency laws that require companies to post salary ranges publicly. California, New York, and several other states have these. And you know what happens? The gap shrinks, because companies can't hide behind "market rates" and "individual negotiations."

You know what doesn't work? Hoping that companies will voluntarily use the "right" accounting method to fix a problem they created.

The Call-Out

If your company is talking about "pay equity initiatives," ask these questions:

  • "Are you giving women actual dollar raises, or just adjusting how you measure the gap?"
  • "What are your salary bands by role, and are they public?"
  • "How much money are you actually spending to close the gap?"
  • "Is this based on a union contract or a voluntary commitment?" (Voluntary = they can change it whenever they want.)

If they get vague or start talking about "accounting techniques," you have your answer: they're not actually fixing the gap. They're just making it look better on paper.

Now, What Are We Doing About It?

The Immediate Action

If you work in HR or Finance: Demand that your company measure the pay gap in *dollars*, not percentages. Push for actual raises, not accounting adjustments. And if they resist, document it. You might need that paper trail.

If you're an employee: Ask your company for their salary data. (Many states now require this.) Compare your pay to your peers. If you're underpaid, you have leverage—especially if you can show it's systemic, not just your role.

If you're in a state without pay transparency laws: Contact your state representative. Tell them you want a bill that requires companies to post salary ranges. It works. The data proves it.

If you're in a union or thinking about organizing: Pay equity should be in your contract. Not "we'll try to be fair." In writing. With numbers. With audits. With teeth.

The Long Game

Stop waiting for companies to voluntarily fix pay gaps. Demand transparency. Demand collective agreements. Demand actual dollars, not accounting tricks.

The gender pay gap isn't a mystery. It's a choice. And every year a company uses an "accounting technique" instead of raising women's wages, that's a choice they're making—in front of their shareholders, their employees, and the law.

We're not here for crumbs dressed up in spreadsheets. We're here for the whole bakery.

In solidarity and with a lot of coffee,
Maya